Naughtycon, noticon, n.icon, noci, n0c1, 0ycon, 0—>?

how to make a line out of time?

Lets say i fancy making a stretch of seemingly continuous colour that evidently begins and end in 2 different places?
Something like:
What exactly has that process involved?
There are many “exacts”, each of which might be very interesting and relevant. However, here am trying to focus on time.
Could a line such as:
be made without time involved?
My mind gets stuck in the process of time that it takes to stretch the line from a given place in the screen’s space.
Indeed, the screen’s space is, in the time sense, a result of stretched lines made of various materials..
To make a line, in a sense, am I not hacking time’s movement to mark a continuous set of very close proximity dots? ________________________________________ ?
Once we get the _________________________ it suddenly emerges with its own time. It has its own rhythm and contingency to disappear in time – hence it own period. Say this was a line on a paper, then it might depend upon the rhythmic physicality of the paper, however, i think its emergent because its independent from the stroke that initiated it. In fact, it seems fair to claim that people – sentient beings – might attempt to compute the initiating stroke in direct link with the possibility of the line being an independent emergent property. Hence, I think, people consider the materials, contet, distribution, etc. that might be involved in a line after the time of initiating it hass gone to be focused on some other stuff. ie the line will have its own timee.
In that sense, perhaps a line might be the visual interval between types of time? Or types of time rhythms? ie sentient-being and organic non-sentient? Different kinds of rhythm?

However, it might also be apt to argue that the other “exacts” am referring to at the top, might in themselves be another kind of Out of time, no? Say we consider lines such as ______________ as nothing to do with time but everything to do with a sense of sace, or sense of quantities, ie how far a is from b, etc..

abstracts not and not colours?

# Stream all?
if not colours.tar

# Stream rounds?

if not composed-performed7

# Stream txt files?

not z as r

not black

not red

not beige

not z as p

not x as b

not b

not p

not r

not pink

# Stream lists text?

(not z as r)
(not black)
(not red)
(not b)
(not p)
(not x as b)
(not beige)
(not z as p)
(not r)
(not pink)


not z as r
not black
not red
not b
not p
not x as b
not z as p
not beige
not r
not pink


not z as r / p
not x as b
not black
not red
not b | p | r
not beige
not pink

# Stream composed rounds?

if not composed-performed10

if not composed-performed8

if not composed-performed9

# Stream animation?
not fig0

not fig00

# Stream individual rounds?













# Stream lists files?

not list of all with brackets

not not list of all

not list of all

A view regarding dynamics in art?

This is in relation with the post regarding if and th idea of dynamics that’s at the background.

It seems to me that apart from the example of sounds composition in the post, it can be argued that alterations in practices we tend to link with art, seem to have something to do with dynamics among elements.
This point is well illustrated in David Joselit’s talk about Duchamp: “beyond repetition”. DJ points out that the fountain performs the activities we link with art, however with different dynamics involved. Ie – getting an object, giving it a name, signing it, placing in link with established art sequences. Am using here my own words slightly, however, I think the ideas, and more artworld establishment friendly wordings are better expressed in the talk.

The point that am trying to get to question though is to do with dynamics and that through manipulations of How elements link with one another, alters the aesthetics.
In a sense, am thinking that it is pivotal for practices such as precisely because we focus on abstract elements.

Perhaps “abstract” should be defined better in this context?

Since the focus is on elements in time, in a movement that is a kind of a stream, might be part of a wave, but probably not. Its a contingency in time.(??!!)
Since we are focusing, it does not serve to deny otherness to Its just a current – time again – practice.
However, it seems to me that if indeed we are focusing on time-based elements, then it is appropriate to use dynamics.
Going back to the JD talk, I think the dynamics he raises work ok in the context of his delivery because he too is talking about duchamp’s work in terms of time. Granted, the time idea is not explicit, however, how else can we consider performativity and operations – now using DJ’s terms – but as some sort of combined/composed elements in time?

Seriously. Is there other than time element? Am interested because I know that I read many things in rhythmic, time, stream, wave sort of terms. Hence perhaps I have an over propensity to attempt time-oriented rout to comprehend and interprate stuff. It needs to be checked. It needs, perhaps its own sense of ifness? Can it?

studies in meaning free – or abstracts?

Apparently, meanings come from context. ie the red of an apple can be different from the same red shade as blood. The difference is via meanings assigned to blood and apples which provide variations in meanings.

Colours however, are made from absence (as in the object does not have a colour), a reflection (of the colour being perceived), and the absorption of all other colours. The green of a leaf is not what the leaf’s colour might be, and indeed not what it absorbs, its a reflection.
Would it need some other entity to be seen? Would it not be green if there was some other than human being to perceive?
not a fig


attempting to comprehend if ?

A bit of background thoughts
I think it will be worth while to consider the approach as Dynamic.
Am not linking up with some dynamism here.
However pointing out that the approach has to do with dynamics rather than objects as static elements.
I think bearing this point in mind could help assessing claims such as:
If we have a + b + c, it is different to c + b + a. While it could be ludicrous to claim that a + b is not b + a when the objects are numbers, since the focus is on sensations, I think we can not treat the objects as numbers but as senses.
Consider this:
Lets say that the a + b + c referred to notes/sounds from a piano. Playing the sequence c + b + a will feel different, right? In that manner am claiming that the difference has to do with the alterations of dynamics between the sounds*.

Since the focus here is on dynamics between x y and z, I think it will be worth recalling that when criticizing ideas such as inability to have less than 4 elements.

(Background thoughts have just ended)

I think the initial stream in, as in initiating stuff rather than beginning as in origin and originating*, is something like that:

We have an X which is the not Z.
We have a Z which is the not X.
Movement is not mass and vice versa. An idea is not an apple and vice versa. And so on..

Y is really for ^. ^ is an interval linked with X and Z.

The interval, say between X and Z is akin to intervals between numerical elements in that sense – ie it is an infinity. We can never tell what and how the interval between X and Z might be. Indeed, perhaps “between” is a misleading term.
Perhaps more appropriate will be to say “with”.
The claim is that the sense of infinity, the interval, is an element that allows X to be other than Z and vice versa. As such they have to link, but do not necessarily have to be there.
Lets check this?
OK.. Am making an assumption that a person might rather not be in either give money or life, kind of sequence.
Assuming such a person, what might they rather? I think one of the possibilities is to have other options than the 2 binary ones. e.g.
Money, life – or some other options. These other options might not be there in any way but absence. Give me money. Give me your life. and the subject of these demands might wish there were other ideas that aren’t forth coming. The fact these wished for ideas are there by absence, in my mind, makes them an interval that is not in between the X and Z. The interval is outside of the X and Z – money/life – however the absence makes the sense of starkness in X and Z.
If the sequence was, money, life, lemon, time, or a new idea – the whole dynamic would be very different. No?

So now lets wonder from the notion of movement sensation. Say to initiate wonders, perhaps of a certain kind, we use movements.
if xyz (if X interval Z) .(link) XZ^

if movement(X), interval(Y), not X movement(Z) – am claiming to link it with – movement_not-that-movement_an-infinity-linked-with-X-and-Z
Now someone else might come and say:
if movement(X), interval(Y), not X movement(Z) – am claiming to link it with – an-infinity-linked-with-X-and-Z_movement_not-that-movement

While both wonders are different, they do not deny one another. Not by necessity.

I think that once we have movement, we can build other wonder sensations from it. I suspect this can be done with other elementary properties, but will begin from movement for now.

An attempt to point out the elements in the movement
X is some element.
Y is some interval for it is linked with both X and Z while 1. being other than X and Z, and is required by both X and Z.
Z is not X.
The 4th element is what ever emerges when and while XYZ have their dynamics.
In that sense:
ifxyz is a dynamic that allows an emergence of xyz.

Are these rules?
I think they are not, but they could be.
Since we have if some stuff, it could turn out to be a rule. However, for the time it is If some stuff, I think we have to conclude that its some sort of contingency that is likely to fold and disappear.
I sense
if X Y Z as a question. The initial dynamic am talking about here:
if x y z ? We get an:
if some initial dynamic/movement ?
I do not see why this can not fold and disappear while some other stuff might prove to be more appropriate. Hence it seems like a continuous question of If rather than a rule of do.

The *ed stuff:
* dynamics in link with art?